On a news day that included fears of a swine flu pandemic and the fallout of a low-flying government 747 in New York City, it was Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania who topped the headlines. He formally announced Tuesday that he is leaving the Republican Party to become a Democrat. The impact of Specter's decision is both immediate and weighty, the ripples of which will extend into 2010. The substitution of Specter's (R) to a (D) brings the Democrats to 59 Senators, a mere vote away from a filibuster-proof majority that will assure them swift policy decisions. That single vote, by the way, will inevitably arrive in the form of Al Franken out of Minnesota. Though Franken is not technically seated yet, it is pretty clear that former Senator Norm Coleman is not going to win the seat through litigation. At some point in the coming months the Democrats, including Arlen Specter, will have limitless control of the United States government.
The Republicans, at first shocked by the sudden decision, feel betrayed. Perhaps rightfully so. The move leaves Republicans with no recourse against the legislative agenda of President Obama and the Democrats. Already vastly outnumbered in the House, Republicans are not even invited to the table on developing major legislation such as the Stimulus Plan. With the Democrats on the cusp of a supermajority in the Senate, the Republicans will no longer be able to use filibustering as a legislative tool. Is having one party in total control such a good thing for American democracy? Certainly not, as it discourages healthy debate and policy compromises. Specter himself noted the importance of the 41 Republicans in the Senate just last month, calling them "an important asset to the American people."
So why, after 28 years of being a Republican, did Specter switch now?
In his official statement he stated, "As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party." This is valid reasoning for his exodus: the Republican Party is struggling with identity and the hard-right conservatives tend to be more... vociferous as they vie to steer the course of the party's future. However, is Specter really so ideologically distant from his former peers to warrant changing lanes? I suspect that in large part, Specter's decision has to do with his own political future. Waning Republican support for the Senator in his home state due to his vote for President Obama's stimulus package had many polls predicting his defeat in the primary for his seat next year. Will Specter receive a Democrat challenger now that he has switched? He very well may, but don't be surprised if an unchallenged primary bid was part of a bargain to come to the Democrats.
Some may hail him, others spit at the sound of his name. For myself, I believe it would have been more ideologically prudent to become an Independent, though his re-election bid would likely not pan out as Senator Lieberman's did. His disagreements with Republicans would be more palpable if it did not appear he had his own skin in mind. In addition, he will serve the remainder of his term, which was earned through the campaign dollars of Pennsylvania Republicans and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in opposition to those interests. I have no qualms with any elected official changing parties either direction--I would even prefer they become Independents--so long as they do so at the end of a term or at the start of a campaign. When voters are disenfranchised, to a degree, by the representative they sent to office, then the waters get a bit muddy. Next year the voters of Pennsylvania will get their chance to weigh in on Specter's change of heart. It should be interesting to find out what they say.
No comments:
Post a Comment